RealGM

The way it sounds is Philly was trying to dump Dally any way they could. Feelings about him and his contract are all over the place on the Wolves board. But assuming we could have gotten him for the least-attractive package yesterday (in my estimation that's Cardinal/Madsen), who would have been in favor of bringing him in? Or, even giving away virtually nothing to get him, is his contract still too ugly?

For me, the answer to that depends upon how much cap room we've gotten ourselves for this offseason, and how we use it.

If we assume that we don't get a top 3 draft pick (which for the moment seems safe), let's say we end up with something like this, in the draft:

Holliday OR Teague
Jerome Jordan
Tyreke Evans

That would put us at

1 - Telfair/DRAFT PG/Brown
2 - Foye/Miller/Evans
3 - Gomes/Brewer/Cardinal
4 - Love/Smith/Madsen
5 - Jefferson/Jordan/Madsen


To me, what we'd still be missing from that lineup is size--which Dally would have filled. Even if we use two picks on size and take Thabeet or Mullins instead of Holliday or Teague, and add a PG prospect later (say, for example, if Brown and Telfair look great over the rest of the season), depending on a first year big man is not the best idea, IMO.

So it comes down to, what else could we get for our $$$ this off-season? Do we have the funds to go after Mehmet Okur or Anderson Varajao? Is Zaza Pachulia or Chris Wilcox or Etan Thomas the best we're going to do? Would we rather take a flyer on one of the TFKAS kids (Sene or Swift)?

Hell, do we even have the wherewithal to go after everyone's favorite SF, and if we do, who are we trading for a big man?

Anyone know where we actually stand, cash-wise for next year, beyond the MLE? Math is hard...

ChazzleDazzle wrote: Anyone know where we actually stand, cash-wise for next year, beyond the MLE? Math is hard...

CanisHoopus is on the ball, updating the salaries on their site

http://www.canishoopus.com/pages/contract-info

We have about $51 in guaranteed salary right now. Toss on $5 for our 2009 picks makes it $56 Let's say we pass on using the MLE or even bringing back Carney (UFA), and we're still just barely under the cap. Lux is $71.15 this year, but will be going down over the next two.

I'm opposed to Dalembert, even at this discount price. He's an athletic freak who has no BBIQ whatsoever, and got paid because he had one good season. Now he's back to being lost on offense and on defense. Worse, he's owed $13 mil in the valuable 2010-11 season.

I think that money has become more valuable than this, and will get even more valuable. We can do much better.

ChazzleDazzle wrote:For me, the answer to that depends upon how much cap room we've gotten ourselves for this offseason, and how we use it.

If we assume that we don't get a top 3 draft pick (which for the moment seems safe), let's say we end up with something like this, in the draft:

Holliday OR Teague
Jerome Jordan
Tyreke Evans

That would put us at

1 - Telfair/DRAFT PG/Brown
2 - Foye/Miller/Evans
3 - Gomes/Brewer/Cardinal
4 - Love/Smith/Madsen
5 - Jefferson/Jordan/Madsen


To me, what we'd still be missing from that lineup is size--which Dally would have filled. Even if we use two picks on size and take Thabeet or Mullins instead of Holliday or Teague, and add a PG prospect later (say, for example, if Brown and Telfair look great over the rest of the season), depending on a first year big man is not the best idea, IMO.

So it comes down to, what else could we get for our $$$ this off-season? Do we have the funds to go after Mehmet Okur or Anderson Varajao? Is Zaza Pachulia or Chris Wilcox or Etan Thomas the best we're going to do? Would we rather take a flyer on one of the TFKAS kids (Sene or Swift)?

Hell, do we even have the wherewithal to go after everyone's favorite SF, and if we do, who are we trading for a big man?

Anyone know where we actually stand, cash-wise for next year, beyond the MLE? Math is hard...

I don't know where we stand cash-wise, but I think this is an excellent roster analysis, and exactly why I would have pulled the trigger on MN Die Hard's Cardinal/Madsen for Dalembert deal.

There are no free agents out there who fit better, and trades are trades... you never know who's going to be available. They're a risk (usually because, as in this case, one of the guys is overpaid for his production.) But again I go back to the fact that Love will likely be underpaid for his production over the next 3-4 years. To me it's a wash.

Off topic - this is why Kevin Pritchard may be overrated as a GM. He's risk averse, doesn't want to swing for the fences (think of how much better his playoff-bound Blazers would have been with Richard Jefferson or Gerald Wallace at the 3.) He's too enamored of his own prospects, like Paxson in Chicago was a couple of years ago, refusing to include Deng in proposed KG and Kobe deals. I think it's going to be interesting to see where Pritchard takes the Blazers over the next couple of years.

TrentTuckerForever wrote: Off topic - this is why Kevin Pritchard may be overrated as a GM. He's risk averse, doesn't want to swing for the fences (think of how much better his playoff-bound Blazers would have been with Richard Jefferson or Gerald Wallace at the 3.) He's too enamored of his own prospects, like Paxson in Chicago was a couple of years ago, refusing to include Deng in proposed KG and Kobe deals. I think it's going to be interesting to see where Pritchard takes the Blazers over the next couple of years.

I don't mind POR not going for the fences nearly as much as CLE. LeBron is a cash cow for them, so the lux is not an issue, but the front office showed LeBron that instead of adding talent and going for a championship, pocketing $20 mil for the owner's bank account was more important. POR doesn't have the pressing need, but I agree with you on the way they are over-rating their assets.

Over on the Trade Boards, loserX made an amusing post:

loserX wrote: I'm pretty sure those reports, if true, prove that Lafrentz WASN'T that all that hot a commodity. Any time Portland tried to make a deal using Lafrentz, the other team demanded something of actual value or said "forget it". RLEC wasn't enough to get good players.

Pritchard clearly overestimated other teams' willingness to dump salary. The demanding of a Warriors' future first to make a Carter-for-Frye deal is a perfect example.

Pritchard: "Sure, I'll take your expensive car off your hands for nothing, but you have to throw in your iPod."
Thorn: "Uh, what? What do you need the iPod for?"
Pritchard: "I don't, I have a room full of mp3 players already. I just want you to give it to me as a prize for me taking your car away."
Thorn: "Walk west until your hat floats."

I like both Dalembert and Hinrich, and think either of them would have made us a much better team. However, neither or both of them were going to make us a great team.
To answer your question, I probably would've done a Cardinal, Madsen + filler offer for Dalembert if they threw in a future first, but not positive.

My guess is this offseason, we'll sign one free agent. We might offer Marvin a 4-5 year MLE deal and see if Atlanta matches something that long. I'm guessing LA would match any MLE offer for Ariza. I don't know that Utah will have money to match a MLE deal for Millsap, but he's bound to get a better offer or a better fit MLE deal from someone else. Beyond that there are bound to be several good FA that fit the Wolves that fall through the cracks that we could possibly sign with our 2-3 mil of capspace leaving the MLE if we want to use it next year. My guess is we use our two seconds and Boston first to either improve the MN or Miami picks or move to 2010 draft. That way two picks + one FA will fill out our 15 man roster assuming Ollie and Carney do not return. Madsen could be a buyout option, but his expiring will be valuable.

FYI: Over at Hoopus we have a new salary feature that Wyn put together of the payrolls of each and every team in the league:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... hzBoBSzXQQ

shrink wrote:
I don't mind POR not going for the fences nearly as much as CLE. LeBron is a cash cow for them, so the lux is not an issue, but the front office showed LeBron that instead of adding talent and going for a championship, pocketing $20 mil for the owner's bank account was more important. POR doesn't have the pressing need, but I agree with you on the way they are over-rating their assets.

Only difference there is that Cleveland is pretty well set up to win it all this year with the talent they have. The Cavs are 42-11 even with key rotation guys missing chunks of the season with injuries. The Blazers are a younger team, with more upside, but they would have clearly benefited this year from a talent upgrade at the 3 or 1.

I take your point on the money though, shrink... if Cleveland DOESN'T win it all this year, they're opening themselves up to huge criticism.

shrink wrote:Over on the Trade Boards, loserX made an amusing post:

loserX wrote: I'm pretty sure those reports, if true, prove that Lafrentz WASN'T that all that hot a commodity. Any time Portland tried to make a deal using Lafrentz, the other team demanded something of actual value or said "forget it". RLEC wasn't enough to get good players.

Pritchard clearly overestimated other teams' willingness to dump salary. The demanding of a Warriors' future first to make a Carter-for-Frye deal is a perfect example.

Pritchard: "Sure, I'll take your expensive car off your hands for nothing, but you have to throw in your iPod."
Thorn: "Uh, what? What do you need the iPod for?"
Pritchard: "I don't, I have a room full of mp3 players already. I just want you to give it to me as a prize for me taking your car away."
Thorn: "Walk west until your hat floats."

I plan to make "Walk west until your hat floats" part of my everyday lexicon.

And that's a perfect illustration of my perception of Pritchard. He has accumulated a ton of young assets. But the next step requires risk, and he's not willing to do that (so far) without mitigating that risk - as loser points out, give me a first for taking Carter, whereas the other GM probably would want young talent back along with LaFrentz' expiring. It's not realistic, and it's not how champions are built. It was a risk to put Rodman next to MJ, a risk to acquire technical foul magnet Rasheed Wallace at the deadline if you're Detroit, a risk for the Celtics to put 3 max players on the same team (two of whom had never played a lick of defense before KG came aboard.)

I guess the only counterpoint to this approach is the Spurs, who have won multiple titles by sticking to their formula (defense, Duncan, Popovich.) But they're almost the exception that proves the rule - the Spurs won the draft lotto twice (in years where a dominant center was coming out) and have some of the best and most stable ownership/front office types in the league. If you don't have an historically good coach, or an owner who is willing to let you tank a season for a chance to draft Tim Duncan, you have to take some risks.